The steam off your ...

CLADA

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/drinkdrive-cases-dismissed-over-urine-steam-inhalation-1558331.html

:eek:

I'm lost for words :mad:, some assistance deadwood.

metman

"The law covering Section 49 requires that a person suspected of drink driving must be observed by a garda for 20 minutes at a garda station before their breath sample is taken."

Eh?? Is this piece of legislation designed to assist potential drink-drivers?

Here, we have a power to require a breath specimen at the road side, a failure to provide means arrest. A failure of the test means arrest under s.5

If we suspect driving whilst unfit through drink or drug we can arrest without the breath kit, s.4.

For a section 5 arrest the person is taken to the station and put on the intoximeter. This is usually done as quickly as possible, so as not to lose any evidence (i.e the persons alcohol level falling over time). At the nick, the suspected drink driver will, after a quiet word with the custody skipper, be given 'preferential treatment' and jump the waiting queue of suspects waiting to be booked in. They'll be advised that a failure to provide samples at the station means an automatic charge for failing to provide, which will in turn lose them their license. If they're compliant, two evidential samples of breath will be taken, and the lower of the two is used. If its above 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, locked up until sober, then charged and straight to court followed by automatic ban and hefty fine. The whole ethos here is the preservation of evidence and getting the suspected drink driver on the intoximeter asap. Otherwise what's the point?

So, why on earth would you need to observe someone for 20 minutes? If anything this assists the suspected drink driver, in so far as his alcohol level may decrease.

No wonder the piss is being ripped out of the legislation, literally :rolleyes:

eroo

Last month, at Killorglin District Court, two separate drink-driving cases were dismissed after the presiding judge ruled that the steam of his own urine has affected his ability to function, and he subsequently could not preside over the cases.

''Guard,*hiccup* I just turned my back to you *hiccup* so you have to reset the *hiccup* stopwatch.''

ScubaDave

Its a stupid situation alright.... but still.

Metman - do u take anything away from the average of the two readings?

Over here they take away... im not sure is it 17.5 or 18.5 %.

metman

ScubaDave wrote: »

Its a stupid situation alright.... but still.

Metman - do u take anything away from the average of the two readings?

Over here they take away... im not sure is it 17.5 or 18.5 %.

You talking about VAT deduction?

Nope, we don't do averages. The suspect gets two blows, both are recorded and the lowest is used. Any fcuking about = failure to provide. We don't prosecute 40 or under....I think that's how it works, but not too sure as this hasn't arisen for me as mine have never been less than 65...right up to 160+.

AlekSmart

Straight out of the Incredibles alright...

Kilorglin....Darby O Gill territory and they`ve built up quite a stock since Hollywood fled their townland.

It also has to be admitted that all of our native leglislation is adjudicated upon in an ethos which sees The Law as a rather enduring throwback to British Imperial Rule in Ireland.

Thus,anybody nicked for breaking these law`s is always given full and complete access to a myriad of ways to outfox those same law`s.

It`s one of the essential reasons for the tolerance of destruction and anti-social thuggery now prevalent in Ireland.
If everybody who commits such offences gets a second chance then twice as many Bus Shelters can be trashed,twice as many cars can be stolen,twice as many foreigners beaten up,twice as many Pints drank,Twice as many people killed....:mad:

Culturally we don`t do responsibility in any form,nowhere more so than in the observance of Law or regulation.

This situation is unlikely to alter in any meaningful way until somebody can infiltrate the lower reaches of the Legal Proffession and attempt to penetrate the minds of Judges through the Law Library.

50,100,200 who knows even a millenia or two may be required before the hyper developed mindset of the Irish Legal Intelligensia can be diluted enough to recognize reality and the need to apply Laws fairly and equitably :P :P :P

JonAnderton

The law covering Section 49 requires that a person suspected of drink driving must be observed by a garda for 20 minutes at a garda station before their breath sample is taken."

Is this the same reason why we ask if they have had a drink, eaten or smoked a cigarette in the last 20 minutes, so they can't say that these had an effect ont eh ESD?

metman

Sod the law library, what incentive would there be for the Bar to bring about a change in law through stare decisis? Pardon my french, but bollix to that. How many lawyers would retire fat in the interim?

Instead, how about we go down the traditional avenue and seek a change in the law based on good oul lobbyin of de government.....but hang on a minute. This would mean the Irish people would have to be serious about tackling drink driving and actually being desirous of reform.........I respectfully withdraw my earlier submission.

metman

JonAnderton wrote: »

Is this the same reason why we ask if they have had a drink, eaten or smoked a cigarette in the last 20 minutes, so they can't say that these had an effect ont eh ESD?

Apparently persons in custody have to be monitored for 20 minutes to ensure they don't do any of the above! :rolleyes:

Can you spot the loophole?

TheNog

When I was in college the instructors did warn us again and again about drunk drivers. Nearly too much so in my book cos many of us were ****ting it with our first few. To date I have had about 10 drunk drivers and have only lost one but that was a special one with unusual circumstances followed by me making a small **** up but hey ye live and learn.

I was gonna post a few of the things people do to get out of the conviction, some I have seen myself and others that were widely reported but I don't want to be giving people tips.

TheNog

metman wrote: »

Apparently persons in custody have to be monitored for 20 minutes to ensure they don't do any of the above! :rolleyes:

Can you spot the loophole?

In IReland the prisoner has to be monitored for 20 minutes to ensure nil by mouth but someone people have got off when they were not monitored properly or if the prisoner told the judge the guard did something during the observation.

Also out of the 2 samples of breath that are given, the machine takes the lowest reading and takes 17.5% off that reading. That then is the reading of the prisoner.

On a side note the highest reading I have seen is 116 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath and I have my hand on my heart when I say, He didn't look pissed.

metman

TheNog wrote: »

In IReland the prisoner has to be monitored for 20 minutes to ensure nil by mouth but someone people have got off when they were not monitored properly or if the prisoner told the judge the guard did something during the observation.

Also out of the 2 samples of breath that are given, the machine takes the lowest reading and takes 17.5% off that reading. That then is the reading of the prisoner

I have to say mate, that system is archaic and if anything assists drink-drivers.

There is no reason why any driver suspected of driving whilst under the influence should be given a 20 minute grace period. Common sense question, I nick you at the roadside, what is your alcohol level likely to be after a 'legally satisfactory 20 minute period'? I would suggest it'll be a lot less than at the roadside (especially if your suspect knows anything about blood alcohol levels).

Not only is this sufficient for me to suggest that the legislation is written in such a fashion as to make law enforcement difficult.......enter 17.5% off the lowest reading!???!?!?!

Is this the Irish legislature factoring in the drop in UK VAT? Sorry, why is there such a deduction in the persons breath sample? We have after all taken two evidential samples from that suspected drink driver (albeint after 20 minutes minimum:rolleyes:) so why are why now deducting numbers.....oh right, ya, we dont want to convict people of drink driving.......is this the official line? Sorry, my policing instincts are confused here.

TheNog

It does appear to favour the prisoner alright. TBH I haven't really thought of it before now but having said that our station has the Intoxylser machine so we see many drunk drivers from our own station and other stations too. We now have arrived at the situation that we can accurately guess the reading of the prisoner to within 10 or so microgrammes. Result from that is we have rarely arrested people who have come under the limit.

What I find even more disturbing is that nearly half of drunk drivers are getting off the prosecutions. In our station we follow the procedures to the letter and are very good making our statements that don't give any solicitors or barristers any chance of arguing a point and creating a doubt. Why this is practiced in other stations throughout the country is a concern.

metman

It'd be interesting to see how many of your prisoners get off with drink-drive under our system.

I don't doubt your lads are doing anything different to ours in so far as you're bringing in motorists whom you suspect are over the limit.

Where you're being let down is at court, because the legislation on which your arrest and intoximeter procedure is based factors in some bizarre 20 minute ritual, wherein the law library is having a field day. Hello!? Calling all Gardai! Might someone flag this up to senior management so it can be flagged up to da local TD, and get someone a promotion?!

Esel

My understanding of the 20 minute waiting period is: to prevent the person using the defence of "Judge, I had just gargled with a swig of my hip flask as I had a divil of a toothache. So, my reading on the machine would have been affected by this, as I was only drinking minerals in the pub."

metman

esel wrote: »

My understanding of the 20 minute waiting period is: to prevent the person using the defence of "Judge, I had just gargled with a swig of my hip flask as I had a divil of a toothache. So, my reading on the machine would have been affected by this, as I was only drinking minerals in the pub."

Still completely alien to my way of thinking.

How would any of what you suggest affect the fact that you are driving whilst over the prescribed limit? I dont give a toss what you were drinking in the pub, my interest in what you blow when I stop you.

Esel

Over here, it's the result on the machine in the station that counts.

TheNog

metman wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see how many of your prisoners get off with drink-drive under our system.

Just watching ROad Wars and Carl brings in a drunk driver to the machine. I noticed Carl switches on a recorder and asked the prisoner if he had anything to eat or drink in the last 20 minutes. Is this the usual way ye do it?

If we did that here I can see a barrister asking the question:
Guard my client states he was so drunk that he had lost all track of time and had in fact drank/eaten less than 5 minutes before you breathlyised him.
Cue guard with blank expression

It demonstrates that our drink driving laws are more contested than murder.

metman wrote: »

Where you're being let down is at court, because the legislation on which your arrest and intoximeter procedure is based factors in some bizarre 20 minute ritual, wherein the law library is having a field day. Hello!? Calling all Gardai! Might someone flag this up to senior management so it can be flagged up to da local TD, and get someone a promotion?!

It was talked about a few years where a shake up of our drink driving laws but nothing happened. I think the figures in the Sunday Indo above are twisted because there was a challenge against the procedures and the machine in about 2003-2006. Many cases were put on hold until the High Court gave their judgements but again I am surprised that there is still so many cases left to decide.

metman

TheNog wrote: »

Just watching ROad Wars and Carl brings in a drunk driver to the machine. I noticed Carl switches on a recorder and asked the prisoner if he had anything to eat or drink in the last 20 minutes.

Carl is a friggin legend.

In relation to what he said, Jon raised this point earlier; on sticking someone on the ESD (breathbox) we'll ask have you smoked, used mouthwash in the last 20 minutes. In the highly unlikely event someone says yes, then you're obliged to wait 20 minutes (I've never met anyone whose said yes, nor met any officer who knew anyone who had said yes).

TheNog

metman wrote: »

Carl is a friggin legend.

In relation to what he said, Jon raised this point earlier; on sticking someone on the ESD (breathbox) we'll ask have you smoked, used mouthwash in the last 20 minutes. In the highly unlikely event someone says yes, then you're obliged to wait 20 minutes (I've never met anyone whose said yes, nor met any officer who knew anyone who had said yes).

Has it never been brought up in court though?

The solicitors and barristers would have a field day here with it.

Have ye had any major challenges to the procedures or anything like it?


And yes Carl is a legend. I loved the way he was always standing back from the camera, the quiet one but when he spoke you listened. Not like Pat though. He was the opposite end of the scale.

Eru

For starters, any doctors around that can tell us if there is any medical evidence to support this assumption that inhaling a fume will effect the test?

Secondly, its a great big jump of presumption of the judges part. Exactly how did he form the opinion that 'mil by mouth' also includes inhaling?

Lastly, if 20 minutes nil by mouth includes inhaling it means we must stop people from breathing for 20 minutes!!!!!

sam34

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

For starters, any doctors around that can tell us if there is any medical evidence to support this assumption that inhaling a fume will effect the test?

Secondly, its a great big jump of presumption of the judges part. Exactly how did he form the opinion that 'mil by mouth' also includes inhaling?

Lastly, if 20 minutes nil by mouth includes inhaling it means we must stop people from breathing for 20 minutes!!!!!

ok, i can answer the first, inhaling a vapour will lead to something being absorbed into the bloodstream, and thus raising the blood alcohol level, more quickly than if taken orally.

but, im a little stumped on the bit about inhaling steam from urine.... how is that possible?? any urine i've seen doesnt give off fumes/vapours/steam that rise feet up in the air.... there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from.... the concept of inhaling steam from piss doesnt sit easy with me.

shoegirl

This is a complete joke. Surely there is a better way around the issue than allowing people a 20 minute period in which to completely and literally "take the piss" out of the law in this way?

TheNog

This is PC gone to a whole new level of madness.

How did the solicitor create a doubt about the whole steam issue without providing medical evidence? And how could steam be produced from pee in a warm room? Was evidence of temperature of the room given.

FGR

This is worse than the whole "He didn't say a public place = Immediate Strike Out" debacle :rolleyes:.

metman

TheNog wrote: »

Has it never been brought up in court though?

The solicitors and barristers would have a field day here with it.

Have ye had any major challenges to the procedures or anything like it?

Not to my knowledge. As I said its never been an issue for me or anyone I've worked with.

The spiel at the roadside here goes:

I require you to provide me with a specimen of your breath. If you fail or refuse to provide me a breath specimen you may be liable to prosecution. If you fail the breath test you will be arrested. Have you in the last 20 minutes smoked, or used mouthwash? No, then let me explain how the device works.....etc etc.

I suppose that if you decide at court to say 'oh I did actually smoke a fag but forgot to tell the officer' it'd be up to the bench to sort fact from fiction.

As I said, its never happened to me or any of my colleagues.

angelfire9

metman wrote: »

Not to my knowledge. As I said its never been an issue for me or anyone I've worked with.

The spiel at the roadside here goes:

I require you to provide me with a specimen of your breath. If you fail or refuse to provide me a breath specimen you may be liable to prosecution. If you fail the breath test you will be arrested. Have you in the last 20 minutes smoked, or used mouthwash? No, then let me explain how the device works.....etc etc.

I suppose that if you decide at court to say 'oh I did actually smoke a fag but forgot to tell the officer' it'd be up to the bench to sort fact from fiction.

As I said, its never happened to me or any of my colleagues.

Excuse my ignorance here but what does smoking have to do with drink driving? I don't drink but i smoke like a chimney sometimes and i've been breathalysed a few times without any problem

metman

Apparently the chemicals in cigarettes can affect the breath kit......and give an incorrect reading.....or so I'm told.

deadwood

sam34 wrote: »

there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from.....

Speak for yourself.;)

(Ye could see that coming, surely?)

deadwood

CLADA wrote: »

I'm lost for words :mad:, some assistance deadwood.

Well, CLADA, if polis can charge a man for dropping his guts in company, good luck to the Kerryman for taking the piss!



Man charged with assault for breaking wind in police station

Published on September 24th, 2008
Posted by McCullough in humor

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) — As if getting a DUI wasn’t enough, a man arrested for driving under the influence got in a lot more trouble at the police station. Police stopped Jose Cruz on Route 60 in South Charleston Monday night for driving with his headlights off.
Then, he failed sobriety tests and was arrested.
When police were trying to get fingerprints, police say Cruz moved closer to the officer and passed gas on him. The investigating officer remarked in the criminal complaint that the odor was very strong. Cruz is now charged with battery on a police officer, as well as DUI and obstruction.

Johnny Utah

deadwood wrote: »

When police were trying to get fingerprints, police say Cruz moved closer to the officer and passed gas on him. The investigating officer remarked in the criminal complaint that the odor was very strong. Cruz is now charged with battery on a police officer, as well as DUI and obstruction.


[/INDENT][/FONT]

HaHaHa.... Assault under section 2:


"In subsection (1)(a), 'force' includes—

( a ) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

( b ) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form."


:D:D:D.......:eek::eek:::eek::eek:

sam34

deadwood wrote: »

Speak for yourself.;)

well, i'm female, so...
maybe i'm hanging around with the wrong kind of guys

TheNog

sam34 wrote: »

there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from....

deadwood wrote: »

Speak for yourself.;)

sam34 wrote: »

well, i'm female, so.../

haha Deadwood you just got owned!!!

Johnny Utah wrote: »

HaHaHa.... Assault under section 2:


"In subsection (1)(a), 'force' includes—

( a ) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

( b ) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form."


:D:D:D.......:eek::eek:::eek::eek:

I would travel a great distance just to see a guard try to make that one stick :D

metman

TheNog wrote: »

haha Deadwood you just got owned!!!

Mrs Deadwood won't like that

deadwood

sam34 wrote: »

.... there's gonna be around 3 feet betwen the average guys nose and where he's peeing from....

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

eroo

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Too late Deadwood, too late!!:P:D

deadwood

eroo wrote: »

Too late Deadwood, too late!!:P:D

Damned work interfering with my boards time.

Esel

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Yeah, frosty weather does that!

TheNog

deadwood wrote: »

Oops. Sorry sam34, I guess there's about 3 inches between where i'm peeing from and where i'm talking through!

Ah you don't talk through your ass that much. :pac:






or






Say hello to Artist formerly known as Prince

*had to be said*

timmywex

Man freed two days after getting two-year sentence
DRUGS CONVICTION LAST 18 MONTHS OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED

JUST TWO DAYS after being sentenced to two years on a drugs related charge a Wexford town defendant was released from Wheatfield Prison.

Sean Malone, of 72 (a) North Main Street, Wexford, had the last 18 months of his sentence suspended by Judge Alice Doyle at Wexford Circuit Court, on the condition that he be of good behaviour for three years on his release.

Malone, had been charged with having cannabis, with a street value of €8,750 for sale or supply at his home on June 14, 2007. The defendant also admitted having possession of two stun guns, contrary to the Firearms Act, in his car at Charlotte Street, Wexford, on the same date.

The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges against him when he appeared before Wexford Circuit Court on Wednesday, November 12.

Judge Doyle sentenced the defendant to two years prison in Wheatfield Prison, with the final 18 months suspended, on the condition that he give an undertaking to be of good behaviour for three years after his release.

The defendant was brought to Wheatfield Prison after the court on November 12 but was released on Friday, November 14.

Malone signed the warrant for release in the presence of the Prison Governor prior to his release. It's also understood that no appeal had been lodged against the sentence.

A spokesperson for Wheatfield Prison said they were not in a position to release any information.

Prosecuting Garda Brian Cummins told the Circuit Court that he searched the defendant's car at Charlotte Street on the date in question and found two stun guns in a bag. The stun guns are classified as a fire arm and 'could inflict a stun'.

The Garda later searched the defendant's home and found a plastic bag which contained five blocks of cannabis resin, which weighed 1,239 grammes and had a street value of €8,750. The defendant had purchased the drugs in Waterford and paid €1,500 for it. He said he planned on splitting the drugs with 'two or three friends'.

The defendant, who is unemployed with an alchohol and drugs addiction, has 12 previous convictions.

deadwood

timmywex wrote: »

Man freed two days after getting two-year sentence
DRUGS CONVICTION LAST 18 MONTHS OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED

What's this got to do with innuendo and immature comments about wee and rudies?

Our man in Havana

I think if Irish barristers and solictors went to the UK they would have a field day tearing the law apart.

I see Pat and Carl had someone blow 210 one night! :eek:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

My take on it is that the 20 minute grace period is to allow for the clearance of any alcohol from the mouth and throat of someone being tested.

If they gargled Listerine and took a test, it would come up positive, despite the fact that they may have zero blood alcohol.

/edit: I'm almost 100% sure that no alcohol will leave your body in the form of urine however. It all gets broken down.

Our man in Havana

You are 100% correct.

Alcohol is oxidised to acetaldehyde in the liver. It is the acetaldehyde that ends up in the blood and is excreted in the urine.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/642alcoholmet.html

metman

Bond-007 wrote: »

I think if Irish barristers and solictors went to the UK they would have a field day tearing the law apart.

I see Pat and Carl had someone blow 210 one night! :eek:

I think the law here has been sufficiently tested in every conceivable fashion so as to be fairly bullet proof. We've more than enough barristers and solicitors here trying to make ends meat as is.

Our man in Havana

Of course the UK is heaving at the amount of barristers and solicitors. I just didn't think they were as ruthless as their Irish colleagues.

metman

Bond-007 wrote: »

Of course the UK is heaving at the amount of barristers and solicitors. I just didn't think they were as ruthless as their Irish colleagues.

Now you are taking the p*ss

Eru

The UK just doesnt fall for the same amount of defence bull**** as our system does.

I asked someone about this and they were of the opinion that if he was horrendously over the limit the fumes could have a slight effect but would not effect the machines reading.

johnnyskeleton

The reason for the 20 minute observation period is that it is part of the operational manual for the intoxiliser. The law comes from DPP v Finn, not from a statutory provision. The steam of the piss part is a bit ridiculous though.

TheNog wrote: »

It demonstrates that our drink driving laws are more contested than murder.

The reason drink driving (and murder) cases are so contested is that there are mandatory sentences, so there is no incentive to plead guilty. As such, people will try any point to try to prevent them being banned. If the driving ban was discretionary, there might be more pleading guilty.

TheNog wrote: »

What I find even more disturbing is that nearly half of drunk drivers are getting off the prosecutions. In our station we follow the procedures to the letter and are very good making our statements that don't give any solicitors or barristers any chance of arguing a point and creating a doubt. Why this is practiced in other stations throughout the country is a concern.

As long as gardai follow correct procedures (and of course the person is actually over the limit) there is no reason for a prosecution to fail. Your solution to the problem (i.e. have all gardai be as thorough as you) is much more sensible than any legislative change.

AlekSmart

Originally Posted by TheNog View Post
What I find even more disturbing is that nearly half of drunk drivers are getting off the prosecutions. In our station we follow the procedures to the letter and are very good making our statements that don't give any solicitors or barristers any chance of arguing a point and creating a doubt. Why this is practiced in other stations throughout the country is a concern.

Now THERE`s an interesting possibility....how about a yearly Station by Station breakdown of successful DD prosecutions ....?

Would sure act as a spur to those stations and members who may NOT be as thorough as The Nog is....

deadwood

AlekSmart wrote: »

Would sure act as a spur to those stations and members who may NOT be as thorough as The Nog is....

While I can only aspire to be so thorough as the Nog:D, i'm sure even he would agree, the reality is sometimes a bit different.

Every case is different. A guard has to act on his wits, legal knowledge and memory. Occasionally, something might be forgotten on the roadside, in the station or on completing a file. If a person has been the vicim of a miscarriage of justice through some act of ommission or commission by a guard, he deserves the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

Mistakes will be made though, and we should remember that we do not have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight or volumes of road traffic act in our arse pockets on the roadside (i'm just lucky I know it all by heart). A solicitor can look at a case in the cold light of day and pore over the relevant law in the comfort of their office. Some make a career out of specialising in Road Traffic Law alone.

(For some reason, Gardai are not allowed use stencilled forms for, say, drunk drivers which would ensure that all procedures are followed rigidly and a prisoners rights are fully respected. Kind of like a custody record which starts when the offender is stopped, rather thatn when he arrives at the station.)

These occasional strike-outs for what appear to be trivial, or very minor technical, reasons are done to remove these "reasonable doubts", so eliminating the possibility for the exploitation of similar loophoes in the future.

I'm getting one of my headaches.